And the statistics?
"Statistically significant" (as calculated by someone else) is something I
usually accept at face value these days. Probably a sign of intellectual
I work in the mining industry. Large plants are based on relatively small
pilot operations, and therefore numbers are crucial. That is why I am
interested in this example. The science I'm getting a grip on, but not the
numbers. Why have they been discounted?
If it is possible to divorce this example from possible implications (ie a
mad scientist "done it"), could someone now clarify how the numbers can be
dismissed? Teach me someone. Why do these numbers not show the connection
that Thomas Keske says they could? And by connection I simply mean that a
chi square test or whatever would show that the null hypothesis - that there
was no connection between vaccination and acquiring HIV/developing AIDS -
was in fact wrong.
Is that in fact the case - did someone do the numbers? This has nothing to
do with cause and effect - it's simply playing with numbers. So come on
someone, show me how not to be in error.
> >From a virologist's point of view, Keske's links between the Hep vaccine
> trials and the appearance of AIDS are unfounded. The only link is a
> temporal one, namely, that the Hep trials preceded the appearance of AIDS
> in homosexuals in NYC. The original material for the Hep vaccine came
> from the same high-risk individuals that the Hep vaccine was tested on.
> the chemical inactivation procedures were just too severe for HIV to
> survive. FYI, HIV is not a very hardy virus and is easily killed by
> chemical or physical means. Now one can always imagine a scenario where
> some evil scientist purposefully added HIV to the vaccine materials, but
> come on, is this a serious argument?
>> Since the same individuals are at risk for both HBV and HIV, is it really
> any surprise that HIV was found in individuals who may have received the
> vaccine (as well as many more who did not receive it?
>> Jay Mone'